site banner
idio3  1yr ago (image post)   3697 thread views

American middle class is the worst socioeconomic group to ever live

Unable to load image 

							
							
...so I was drunk in rdrama/motte BotC server one day and promised to write up a post-level critique of the American middle class. Of course, the "project" kept getting bumped for the sake of far more important things, such as drinking joylessly while reposting telegram posts on shitty drama discord servers, this being a far less effort-intensive way to anger people. However, today I suddenly felt bored enough to actually remember my prior commitments, so here it is:


Lawns are fucking moronic. Just think about it - if you put like 20% of Cook County lawns together and combine all the land, money, and effort that goes into their maintenance into something actually useful - you'll have a fucking Disneyland with a Champs-Élysées annex. But nooooo, this isn't good enough, because that would be public and not MINE, MIIIINE, MOOOOOOOOOM, HE'S USING A TOY THAT'S MIIIIIINE!!!


Worse yet, if I were to personally decide "fuck this, this is retarded, I don't need this shit, there's a perfectly good park like three fucking blocks away - I'll just grow potatoes or something else actually productive on this plot" - a formless, permanently scowling creature - the dreaded bored HOA housewife - is sure to be crawling out of the woodwork in seconds, with a clipboard and her trademark Karen-y bangs. And she'll instantly begin to shrilly preach about how something so unbelievably ludicrous could not possibly allowed under any circumstances, because, god forbid, other Karens looking for a place to live will drive past and certainly think "waah, waah, this is proposterous! Potatoes?! I can't even! I need everything to be exactly uniform!", leading to her pride and joy, the land value of the lawn containing her shitty cardboard box with fancy beige siding - will go down. Un-acc-ept-ab-le!


This isn't really my main point - it's just an absolutely phenomenal illustration of why the American middle class is the worst fucking socioeconomic group to ever live. They are petit bourgeois to an extent (primarily in their deeply rooted insecurity and precarious status), but their sensibilities are worse than that - they see themselves as some sort of smaller-scale genteel manor lord, whose lifestyle they so artlessly attempt to ape - but they lack the taste, the resources, or the confidence to actually do that. So instead, they ape the simplest bit - a manicured lawn that said gentleman would use for playing cricket or going on mid-afternoon horseback rides or whatever the fuck it is that those inbred bastards do there - but without the space to realistically be usable for that or really anything else outside of serving as a glorified litter box for the family dog.


And yet they do see themselves as above everyone else. They are aggressive about it, too! “Look at me, I have made it, I have my lawn. Mine! MINE! I won't live in a pod like those disgusting city-dwellers, ugh!.. I'm a real American. This is real America! I like my Bud Light Coors Light, my pickup, my Jesus, and my Red Lobster! Oh, and my vastly superfluous rifle collection! My office plankton job makes me inherently superior to those dirty poors, who just lack my good, old-fashioned work ethic, or they’d be able to file regional shrinkage dynamics reports just like me and become productive members of society!”


To sum it up, the only real question is... Why are they like this? Who hurt them? What possible calamity has caused them to become these incredibly shallow, yet exceptionally vain shells of something vaguely resembling human form? Perhaps we’ll never know.


I am, however, interested in your guys’ opinions on the subject!



							

						

					


					
							
							

								

				
						

						

					

					

					

						

						

						-37
						

					

					
				

			

		


		
	


 

	

		

			
		

	






	

		

			

	
	

	 Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		


	
		

			
		

	
		

			

				
Jump in the discussion.

				
No email address required.

				
			

		

	

	

	
	

	
		
	

	

  








	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"I don't understand why anyone would want a private park," is a fair summary of your position, IMO.


But I think that says much less about "middle-class Americans" than it does about you, your own priorities, and your ability to assess others.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The problem with communal property is it is usially poorly maintained and policed by hall monitor personalities.


I like my yard. I keep it the way I want it. My neighbors do their own thing with their yard. It is different and highly personalized.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Americans, of course, have found a way to get the worst of both worlds


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What's the problem here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The guy whinging that his neighbor is not part of a hall monitor association...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not a problem. The neighbor can just ignore his whining.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That one in particular was blessed with a non-HOA property. If you ended up in one, you're out of luck.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Its very easy to find neighborhoods thay are 100% HOA controlled. If you look at a mixed development, its easy to buy a house with no line of sight to non-HOA property.


The people I sympathize with are the ones trying to find a home that isn't HOA controlled. That is very difficult if you live in a part of the country near major job centers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Its very easy to find neighborhoods thay are 100% HOA controlled




You've misunderstood me. I'm anti-HOA.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm neither pro nor anti-HOA. I just want people to have their pick.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Delightfully tacky, yet unrefined.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
i think this sets the record for the most downvoted post here


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I wouldn't downvote it, I'm familiar with the practice of drunkenly slurring about the assholes over there and the idiots all round me so who am I to be pious about another likewise? 😁


I'd just gripe back at him, which I have done, so all good!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That honor goes to 2+2 = not what you think, which at time of writing is -32 (+3 | -35)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That post is absolutely hilarious. I want to know the names of the other two people who upvoted it (one massive benefit of having public upvote/downvote logs) so I can ask them what were they thinking...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think if people want lawns, they should be able to have lawns.  Personally I find the sad little strip of concrete or what have you even worse than a tiny patch of grass.  And you're never going to " 20% of Cook County lawns together and combine all the land, money, and effort that goes into their maintenance into something actually useful - you'll have a fucking Disneyland with a Champs-Élysées annex" because the patches of lawn are all in separate strips of housing and separated out by the various towns.  You can't magically clump them all together to get "same surface area as Disneyland plus Champs Elysees", so it's not really a coherent argument.  If you want to argue "the money and time spent on maintaining lawns would come to X amount and could be spent elsewhere" sure, but given my cultural background, very much I go "fuck you, this patch of land is MINE not the possession of the landlord or the Crown and if I want to grow a lawn I damn well can and will do so because it is MINE and belongs to ME" breaks into The Fields of Athenry


If you don't want lawns, you should also be able to not have lawns.  Ditto with if you want to grow flowers, vegetables, etc.  The whole HOA thing is something very foreign (ha!) to me.  So long as you don't have rusting broken-down cars up on concrete blocks in the front yard, it's nobody's business what you do with "your home is your castle".


The irony here is your objections to the HOA is precisely because they act like "this is not yours, it is PUBLIC" even as you scold people for wanting lawns because "But nooooo, this isn't good enough, because that would be public".


"Public" does mean the HOA or other pinched-face clipboard-holder coming round to tell you what you can and can't do with that piece of land.  If you don't want a lawn, owning it as MINE MINE MINE means you can tell them to take a hike.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And you're never going to " 20% of Cook County lawns together and combine all the land, money, and effort that goes into their maintenance into something actually useful - you'll have a fucking Disneyland with a Champs-Élysées annex" because the patches of lawn are all in separate strips of housing and separated out by the various towns.




That part is literally the simplest fix imaginable. A stroke of a pen changes that. Imaginary lines on a map are hardly the biggest obstacle here.




You can't magically clump them all together to get "same surface area as Disneyland plus Champs Elysees", so it's not really a coherent argument.




I'm not "magically" clumping anything together, I'm merely making a point that the same area housing the same number of people in units of the same size could easily be accomplished in a tiny fraction of that area, with additional space left over being enough to have a [insert large landmark].


It's a thought experiment.




If you want to argue "the money and time spent on maintaining lawns would come to X amount and could be spent elsewhere" sure, but given my cultural background, very much I go "fuck you, this patch of land is MINE not the possession of the landlord or the Crown and if I want to grow a lawn I damn well can and will do so because it is MINE and belongs to ME"




Exactly, lol. This is precisely the attitude I have described in this post.




"Public" does mean the HOA or other pinched-face clipboard-holder coming round to tell you what you can and can't do with that piece of land.




Sure, the city won't let you have a toxic waste dump or a bottomless pit, but their decisions are based on public good and real, objective realities of an urban environment. Not conceptual unity with some grotesque local aesthetic chosen by a class of office plankton as a ludicrous way to signal their status.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Imaginary lines on a map are hardly the biggest obstacle here.




Okay, sweetie.  How are you going to roll up all the lawns and put them down in one large open space to become Disneyland with merely "a simple stroke of the pen"?


Demonstrate to me how you get the green bits from this all connected up together into an area the size of Disneyland, please!


Now if what you mean is "demolish all the houses in all the suburbs around all the towns and cities and turn them back to a brownfield site" well yes, I imagine if you knock down every house in all the estates you'll end up with a large open space.  But that's not what the original quote said.


It's like the "if you take a gazillion people all suffering from the momentary discomfort of a dust speck in the eye, it outweighs torturing one person every day for fifty years" argument.  No, it doesn't scale up like that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree that lawns are bad in that sense, and that HOA rules requiring lawns are also bad. I even think you could draw on that as part of a broader criticism of the suburbs and the american middle class or whatever.


But you don't really do that, just 'they have bad taste and are annoying but still are mean to poor people', in a rdrama style rant


And I personally enjoy the rdrama rant as a genre, but this place really isn't for it - "My office plankton job makes me inherently superior to those dirty poors, who just lack my good, old-fashioned work ethic" is considered to be boo outgroup, just a content-free insult, here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"My office plankton job makes me inherently superior to those dirty poors, who just lack my good, old-fashioned work ethic" is considered to be boo outgroup, just a content-free insult, here.




While your criticism is fine in general, this particular sentence you quoted was incredibly obviously satirical. Both in tone and in context.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I know, that kind of satire is considered boo outgroup / bad faith


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I’ll echo what other posters have contended with, mainly that this post argues folks that live in American suburbs are:




formless, permanently scowling creature(s)




Who




artlessly attempt to ape [the gentiles]




And are




inherently superior to those dirty poors, who just lack my good, old-fashioned work ethic, or they’d be able to file regional shrinkage dynamics reports just like me and become productive members of society!




Where is your evidence for this? How could you be persuaded of a counterpoint?


In fact, what is your argument in this post? All I’m reading is that you think people in the American middle class who own suburbs are inherently bad, and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.


Do you think none of these people love their spouses, their children, or their community? Are you really so ready to attack their entire way of life because you don’t understand them?


How about this. You’re a poor American who has worked hard your entire life. You’ve jumped through the hoops, tried your best, earned the status symbols and are trying to wrest some meaning from your life. You’re tired and you just want to relax and enjoy your small house with your family. You indulge in the aesthetic sensibilities that you were socialized into.


Please explain, why are these people bad, exactly? If you can give me a coherent argument, without relying on constant smears, I would be willing to engage with you.


Otherwise I’m siding with @Amadan and @naraburns, in that I’d like to see far less of this type of post on this site.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You’ve jumped through the hoops, tried your best, earned the status symbols and are trying to wrest some meaning from your life.




...and that meaning comes from a lawn? Christ... What a miserable conception of a meaning...


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-16
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


that meaning comes from a lawn?




Because if you have this in your genetic ancestral memory, it fucking well does.  My home is my castle.  This is my own tiny small patch of land that I own and no fucker looking down his nose at my plebeian tastes can do anything but seethe barrenly about the effrontery of me "aping" my "betters".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lawns are defensive architecture.


If every house has one, its wide, and the HOA can boot you for not maintaining it, that keeps lower income blacks from moving into the neighborhood, and better the suburban design keeps them from randomly wandering through on foot.


AMERICA HAD WALKABLE DENSE TASTEFUL SMALL TOWNS WITH URBAN CORES.


Jesus you can drive through Ontario and still see all of them with their functional shopping districts. You can go to Montreal and see dense low cost 3 floor walk-ups with fire escapes and functional communities and tons of little parks, where people let their cats out at night and young children play with scooters and bicycles in back streets and allies before there parents take them to an event downtown on the subway...


America had all of this. Some of the nicest small cities humanity ever created, a ring of urbanism on the east coast and Midwest that occasionally gave Europe a run for their money.


AND THE GOVERNMENT ENABLED ETHNIC POGROMS AGAINST THEM.


The riots of the 50s and 60s destroyed American neighborhoods far removed from the south or "jim crow", where the defensive design of cities and comunities was already in place... And the government made damned sure no ordinary Americans defended their towns or cities... Hell they just did it again to another group of cities in 2020.


    

  • 



THIS IS WHY AMERICAN URBAN DESIGN IS SO FUCKED UP.


Because everything is designed with the assumption that no one can ever defend it, the regime will actively enable attacks on it, and come after you if you defend yourself.


If you look at how cities were designed 1864-1939 they have none of these problems, because it was assumed anyone breaking into homes or attacking old women would be shot or hanged.


Now you need a big fucking lawn, and you need to be part of a network of big fucking lawns, lest the walking dead druggies start moving through your neighborhoods... You look at neighborhoods from 1920 they follow a grid pattern, because its inherently superior for getting to places and having a wider community and having corner stores... post 1960 its all cul-de-sacs because "the community" will fucking murder you.


and you need everyone to maintain those lawns lest property values drop and your daughters be sexually assaulted or beaten into a coma at school were those lower income children will be going.


    

  • 



Everything wrong with urban design in the US, and all the shit it exports to Commonwealth countries, and Europe... is fundamentally an artifact of how necessary segregation was for white safety... and how now that that's impossible, we have to distort physical reality so that whites can work hard and buy segregation as a bizzare lifestyle instead of having to stand and fight the hot ethnic civil war they fled in 60s and 70s when some of the nicest examples of urban design on the north American continent were turned to fucking ruins.


You want to know what happens when you just have a well designed example of dense best practices urbanism that's been allowed to mature and keep it up piling good decision on good decision in a mid-sized city for 100s of years and as such everything winds up being reasonable and  non-exclusive price wise? in the US?


Look at Baltimore.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Replace white with "high class" and black with "low class" and I 100% agree with everything you said here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You only think you're talking about class.


Homicide and crime rates are vastly less correlated with income or social class than race.


Japan and Many European countries have GDPs that are nearly half that of the the US and the median person has an income lower than the average African American yet have basically no crime.


Meanwhile the African Americans at the Top 20% percentile of the income distribution have a higher arrest rate than white American's at the bottom 20th percentile.


Likewise urbanization vs. Rural doesn't matter... religiosity...


Life is a biological phenomenon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Meanwhile the African Americans at the Top 20% percentile of the income distribution have a higher arrest rate than white American's at the bottom 20th percentile.




Where could I find a source for this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							


	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think this makes sense as a theory, I know something similar was done by the interstate highway system — surround ethnic neighborhoods with highways that can’t be crossed and then they’re stuck in ethnic enclaves.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, that's wrong. In urban areas, the streets mostly cross under or over the highway, nobody is physically unable to cross them.


What was unfortunately done was to often raze the poorer but socially cohesive ethnic enclaves to clear the land that the highways would need. At the time it was thought this a moral good: urban renewal would drive integration by breaking up enclaves and forcing people to mix. In reality, people realized they didn't actually need to live in the city any more, and those who could, fucked off.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This was really interesting, I hadn't really thought about how people decide what's good property.


Cul-de-sacs are good for letting the kids play in the streets without having to worry about cars.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Or you could have a dense city with a park no more than 10 minutes away from anywhere, where kids can play on grass rather than asphalt.


Notwithstanding the problems with density alleged in the comment above. If those problems didn't (or don't) exist, parks would clearly be better than cul-de-sacs.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You can and most places in fact do have both. They serve different purposes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Does anyone have a link / post that argues against this? Like, ignoring the kulakisms and just focusing rebutting on the steelman that a primary cause of america's urbanism issues is mostly-black crime


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You can look up the murder rates of cities, some like Baltimore have homicide rates that reach 80 per 100,000, El Salvador territory, literal warzones are often less murderous, by contrast peaceful cities with 20+km of walkable core like Toronto or Montreal have homicide rates of 2 per 100,000. then its trivial to look up how the homicide rate in American cities are almost one to one correlated with the percentage of the population that's black.


"White Flight" (fleeing what? Interethnic Violence! ie. Ethnic cleansing) followed the riots of the 50s and 60s after federal and state governments had subsidized the great migration, when masses of southern blacks to move into Northern (though largely not New England) cities, with massive public housing builds.


Gary Indiana is a prime example from 60,000 whites and 10,000 blacks in 1920, to 120,000 whites and 90,000 blacks by 1960, to under 10,000 whites and 80,000 blacks by 2010.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#/media/File:Gary,_Indiana_racial_demographics.webp


The idea this was just "MuH RaCiSm" when whites left the cities they had lived in for generations after they'd peaceable allowed blacks to settle there through the 30s, 40s, and 50s, is laughable. What Changed? suddenly the regime was backing race riots and refusing to enforce the law when it came to violence aganist whites. Anything like this would have resulted in the state subsidizing armed militias to defend these cities between ~1870 and 1939.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


they'd peaceable allowed blacks to settle there through the 30s, 40s, and 50s,




People often talk about how black people moved to cities in the 30s and 40s, missing the point that there was a depression on in the 30s, so there were no jobs in Northern cities, and that in the early 40s, people were a little busy with the other thing.  There was some Black migration to Norther cities during the war to replace white workers who were fighting.


Racial covenants were ruled unenforceable in 1948, so there was essentially a year or two when Black people could not move into white areas after the war. Furthermore, the red-lined areas in those cities were drawn in the 30s, long before the bulk of the great migration. Black people moved to red-lined areas because they were cheap.  For red-lining to have made a difference would require that black people lived in the area before it was red-lined, and then left the area before red-lining was eliminated while white people moved in.  I can't think of any place where there was a gradual displacement of black people by white non-Hispanic people in Northern cities.  There are, of course, examples of Hispanics displacing Black people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The obvious counter-argument to me is that the trend of sprawling, samey, car-dependent, SFH-only suburbs started in the 40s and 50s, when crime was generally at a low and prior to the riots mentioned by Kulak. The crime wave may have accelerated this trend, but it didn't start it.


The planners who built these places also had no issue planning and building similar developments for blacks, though they were separated because those people believed it was just the natural order of things for races to be separate, not that blacks were inherently incapable of civilization.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I just spent some time arguing against a closely related position, yeah. It was in the context of schooling. I don't think I did a great job, though.


White flight obviously did influence postwar urban design. No contest. I find it hard to believe that it outweighs the market forces: Americans seeing the opportunity for their own mass-produced suggestion of a country estate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If every house has one, its wide, and the HOA can boot you for not maintaining it, that keeps lower income blacks from moving into the neighborhood, and better the suburban design keeps them from randomly wandering through on foot.




I suppose it should've come as no surprise after you sold your soul to twitter for a Rhodesien cat-girl avatar but you're turning into a parody of yourself, you recognize that don't you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is all heat and no light.  Your AAQCs and history obviously get you a lot of leeway, but come on.  You just came off a five day ban, so I feel like I can't possibly give you any less than that here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Have you read the homicide rates?


Baltimore has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000, comparable with El Salvador.


the fact that American black homicide rates, and all other crimes are WORSE than the very worst of the third world is the single most important fact of Ameircan life.


Literally nothing about America makes sense unless you understand how horrifyingly understated even the very worst racial stereotypes are. Take it from a Canadian who niavely believed all the equality stuff, never once had to interact with any of it, and patted themselves on the back for being so egalitarian and making easy friends with Asian, Indian, and Nigerian immigrants in their school... as soon as anyone who hasn't built their life around denying what's right before there eyes observes the black and white REALITY of what's happened and continues to happen in the US, everything clicks.


I feel awful for all the times I felt myself supperior to  blue collar rust belt Americans complaining about blacks... "I'm so much better than them I'm not racist" I thought about people who were being ethnically cleansed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Have you read the homicide rates?






Baltimore has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000, comparable with El Salvador.




and?


while it may be considered rude to notice that democratic controlled municipalities tend to be cess-pools of violence, racism, and human feces, have you not noticed?


As I have argued before, the US doesn't not have a race problem, Baltimore has a race Problem, Chicago has a Race Problem, and you're  just going along with it because you've never been to Atlanta or Mobile.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Blacks vote 90% democrat.


Are they not the very essence of the Democratic Party ?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Atlanta has a Murder rate of 16 per 100,000, Mobile has a murder rate of 20 per 100,000.


Chicago is 18. Right between the two.


Democrats are not the relevant factor.


    

  • 



By contrast Major cities with almost no African Americans have murder rates of 2. And almost entirely white towns and areas homicide rates as low as 0.4 or 0.2


Have you ever been to New England, or Canada or the Upper Midwest or any of the high trust areas with basically no crime and the demographics you'd expect?


    

  • 



I remember as a kid people talking about places you could leave your doors unlocked... And I thought "Oh ya I guess lots of people do that here, but you wouldn't do that in Toronto"


It took rewatching Micheal Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" to realize most Americans were talking about "Leaving your doors unlocked, AFTER YOU GET HOME FROM WORK AND ARE DOING STUFF ABOUT THE HOUSE"


Whereas people in my area were talking about "Leaving your doors unlocked while you go on vacation for a few days"


It was shocking to see Michael Moore surprized that Canadians in Sarnia didn't keep their doors locked on a summer's day WHILE THEY WERE AT HOME.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Baltimore has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000, comparable with El Salvador.




Is this before or after Bukele's reforms?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Before Bukele's most recent reforms the murder rate in El Salvador was 8 in 2022.  It went as high as 103 in 2015, but has dropped fairly linearly since then.   After the crackdown, it is now 0.8.  In comparison, Norway's rate is 0.6 and Italy is 0.5.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's fanstastic graph, I didn't think it could drop so fast. Looks like most of job was done before Bukele?


why do you single 2022 year and not year when Bukele entered office?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I sometimes forget you two are different people. Thanks for reminding me you're not the same poster.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not enough to note abrasiveness. You've got the check what they're abrasive about.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not just abrasiveness. It's the whole "look at how Red Tribe I am" posture.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm actually not red tribe... @HlynkaCG is consistently pissed off with me for how not red-tribe I am and how much I don't get "It".


I'm a Canadian Libertarian who spent all my life in the most liberal small towns and Densest of Urban Cores.


That's why I'm so radical, these aren't just things that were unpleasant realities you learned to bite your tongue and propagate white lies about. I actually believed all the egalitarian claptrap throughout my life, that the only thing holding disadvantaged minorities back was discrimination blah blah blah, because I was Canadian and literally every minority I interacted with had gone through the Canadian immigration process and had, or had family members who had, multiple degrees in something (you basically don't get points to enter otherwise)...


So when you ACTUALLY believe everyone is created equal, and ACTUALLY believe all those disadvantaged "poor kids" are just as smart and just as talented as "white  kids"... and none of your interactions would ever lead you to believe otherwise...


Then you discover the murder rate of Baltimore has been bloody 80 per 100,000! Worse than the worst warzones. And a fucking war of ethnic cleansing has been going on for the entirety of the post-war era (See any of the first hand accounts of "white flight"), and every person and institution the fucking world has been purposefully lying about it and trying to get you to hate the victims of the ethnic cleansing: Working Class whites, and to think it's just that they become second class citizens excluded from jobs and unable to speak their own minds in their own country under pain of lawsuits, being disappeared from social media, and blacklisted from public life.


And the  CoNsErVaTiVeS who were supposed to be standing up for them have been actively enabling it and praising the figures who made it happen, whilst propagating every lie about it?


Ya that radicalizes in a way you cannot possibly imagine.


I'm glad I wasn't raised conservative or believing in America's institutions because there's nothing worth conserving there.


The woke are right: Race IS the most important issue in American life, and literally every American institution needs to burn because of it. They're just mistaken about the specifics of the implication.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not a fan of rdrama, nor do I want its aesthetics and hyperbole imported here.


I am not a huge fan of lawns, and my own yard is some combination of native grass and spindly flowing things.


Still, I find myself confused by your confusion. The lawn people have two children and a dog. If they're older, maybe they have some grandkids and a cat. They do not want to have to supervise them or have them in the same room with themselves  all the time, or even all the time when they're home on evenings and weekends. They cannot send them to the park on their own for 13 years, or depending on the neighborhood, ever. Hence, the yard. Why is that the case? Because it's a big American city, and Americans are kind of paranoid and drive around drunk in trucks where they can't see kids.


Why is the yard full of grass instead of potatoes? Partly because potatoes are kind of a stupid thing to be growing in modern industrial society, where they're incredibly cheap and they'd have to dig up their yard to get them, and there are a bunch of utilities under the soil, so you have to map out where you'd even be able to dig safely.


Some of them do in fact grow kale and such in their backyards, but in suburban Chicago there is a bunch of lead in the soil and the paints and the pipes, and it isn't trivially easy to grow vegetables that are worth eating. It's a lot harder to learn how to grow actually useful plants, neatly, than to keep a lawn, and they subscribe to the broken window theory, where a poorly kept, weedy garden is analogous to a broken window in signaling urban decay. In their defense, a lot of neighborhoods are undergoing a process of decay.


Ok, but why aren't they at least growing fruit or nuts? I don't know, it would amuse the children and the cat, and is easy. Maybe they should. The ones who drive around in pickup trucks, drinking beer while they fish in canals do have fruit trees (and also messy vegetable gardens, and are really an entirely different demographic than the suburban middle class lawn owners). It is probably fairly easy to convince a suburban lawn owner to plant a fruit tree, with a neatly mulched barrier between it and the lawn.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


is easy




I planted locally-appropriate fruit trees at my last house.  Two produced fruit within a couple years, but it was a constant battle to rescue them from fungal infections; the third grew wonderfully, but (although it was supposed to be a self-pollenating variety) never gave me any fruit.


Maybe the ease varies with climate?  When I visit extended family in California I get bags of fruit thrust upon me, because apparently you can't so much as drop a seed in a flowerpot there without being inundated by oranges the size of grapefruits soon after.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, I probably should have added a caveat to that.


I learned only last week about the American Chestnut blight wiping them all out; previously I had just assumed that "chestnuts roasting on an open fire" weren't available in the Western US because they're annoying to pick or something.


In the West, fruit trees are generally very easy to maintain once established, since there aren't a bunch of endemic fungal diseases trying to take them out. They don't always produce, with late storms and winds and droughts and whatnot, but are a lot less work than a lawn.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My late mother planted the seeds from an apple years ago and we still have a very small apple tree that provides a ton of eating apples in autumn.  So many that, because I'm not the baking and cooking type, a lot of them go to waste.


Currant bushes etc. are also easy to grow.  Don't plant strawberries, the runners will take over and turn your garden patch into a weedy wasteland.  I've heard the same re: mint so that's another one to avoid.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you're way off base in the motives you impute to the lawn-lovers.  It's not the lawn itself, or the conspicuous consumption it implies -- it's not being forced to live literally and figuratively on top of other people like the teeming masses of humanity in other countries.  I've lived like that in the past.  It's oppressive and not the way humans were meant to live.  You need to have some distance from other people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's oppressive and not the way humans were meant to live. You need to have some distance from other people.




That is just patently false. Human is a social ape that for most of its history had not even the slightest inkling of personal space or privacy. The idea of a personal house separated by some space barrier from the next one is a very modern one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Our ancestors grew up in very close proximity to their close relatives and tribe members, but they also grew up separated by vast distances from other groups of strangers. I think that's the key difference between your conceptualisation and Ace's.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Pretty much all semi-successful cultures have developed some conception of a dense city as soon as they could. First cities, in fact, have (rather counter-intuitively) sprung up even before agriculture. If we're going to Paleolithic - you'd be right. But that wasn't due to social preference or something as much as it was about the fact that hunter-gatherers in general have a limit to the amount of people their lifestyle can support. As soon as that natural limit was lifted, tribes (or by that time - villages) started growing exponentially and combining into even larger polities. In many places and entirely independently.


The idea that homo sapiens is a solitary creature like a tiger is a very weird pseudoromanticism. We are in fact hard-wired to loathe loneliness above nearly all else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Human is a social ape that for most of its history had not even the slightest inkling of personal space or privacy.




An ape that did not live amongst tar and cement but in nature.  Greenery (even yallery-greenery if we're talking of the savannah) is in our collective unconsciousness.  We're social animals but we're not a hive or an ant nest.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yea, with a small number of people they know well, not literal strangers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am just going to second @naraburns here. This post is bad, and while I have made my share of bad calls pressing the "Approve" button when I shouldn't have, this one wasn't mine. You've got a germ of a worthwhile discussion point here, wrapped in trollish vitriol. But hey, you got it approved somehow and now there's a big thread, so I hope you enjoy it, but now you have two mods ready to ban you the next time you pull this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To be fair complaining about lawn aesthetics is just as bad as adoring lawn aesthetics. Same goes for reading all that shallowness and unwarranted feeling of superiority into people you never met, vs being that shallow etc. A house like in the picture is perfectly suited for reading Dostoyevsky in, and that's the important part, no?


I also don't think that there's a problem that warrants a solution, much less a centralized solution. If someone figures out how to use resources more efficiently without compromising much more important aspects of life with their "part and parcel of hustle and bustle", let them try it somewhere! If it works, people will come and other places will emulate it! If on the other hand you operate under an assumption that people are deluded about what is best for them and must be forced into correct living conditions with an iron hand, it's overwhelmingly likely that it's you who are wrong.


On the latter note, in my experience there's an inverse relationship between the quantity and quality of interactions with neighbors and population density, in terms of inviting neighbors to your birthday party or a random bbq, vs not knowing who even lives in the apartment next door. Like, you might think that people living in separate houses naturally become a sort of haughty recluses shunning human contact, while people forced into a sort of human hive naturally form vibrant local communities--nope, for some reason it's the exact opposite in my experience.


I don't know why, maybe it's because a separate house on its plot of land is much more self-sufficient in certain senses, you don't just sleep there, you hang out there in the evenings and on weekends, your kids play there and around there, stuff like that, so naturally you interact with the neighbors all the time. While if you live in a pod and have to go to do all other activities in other designated areas, you just don't get many opportunities to interact with your pod-neighbors.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I also don't think that there's a problem that warrants a solution




Planning a city or even just a neighborhood is a large-scale project, if there are better ways to do one spreading knowledge about what to do and what not to do is part of getting your epic mixed use urbanism realized.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I strongly disagree with your premise in its fundamentals.


First of all, your view of what an American middle class suburb entails is pervers. Dacha or Rublyovka or whatever are an extremely poor facsimile for it. The former exists fundamentally for spending one's free time in and by its very nature promotes socializing. The latter is an equivalent of an elite social club, with all the baggage that goes along with it. I'm not a huge fan of these hyper-posh exclaves, but their essence is radically different from what the topic of the conversation is here.


On your second point - the idea of interaction quantity and quality is just objectively wrong. For the elderly, the bench in front of the flat block is the primary if not the sole driver of social interaction, for young people - accessibility of trappings of civilization is paramount. Middle-aged office plankton might have an easier time interacting with others of the exact same background and life experience, but that is mostly caused by their failure to attempt to broaden their horizons beyond the lowest of the forms of entertainment.


Most importantly, the point that the representatives of this despicable socioeconomic class like to point to the most - children. In their minds, led by their monomaniacally controlling and fearful nature, the disconnection that these environments provide are a feature, not a bug. But the fact that it is on the parents to control what and with whom their children and adolescents spend their time on is a highly successful vehicle for mass producing extremely sheltered and dysfunctional soys (for the lack of a better term - autists works too, if you prefer). These undersocialized products of isolated plots are everywhere, and they are often the primary cause of a lot of problems facing the society at large.


Finally - your idea that "designated areas" lead to less interaction is hard to justify at all. A common playground is a phenomenal place to force interaction among both parents and children. A nearby bar - for adults. Local football field or a garden - for children. The idea that individual patches of grass separated by wooden fences is better than these is absurd.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


or young people - accessibility of trappings of civilization is paramount




Yeah, young people prioritise being able to go out and get drunk, hook up, and get their hands on fun party substances.  If you're still doing that at fifty, you're a loser.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's great. But is your conception of a proper life at fifty limited to sitting on a couch, watching Netflix, and occasionally (as a treat!) visiting the local Red Lobster? Because there are indeed more things to life than fun party substances, but equally there is far more to it than what a endless field of cardboard boxes on grass could provide.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
At fifty you should be tilling your garden.  Living in a concrete box is only bearable if you're rich enough to have designer minimalism and you can always jet off to your villa in Greece for a break.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But the fact that it is on the parents to control what and with whom their children and adolescents spend their time on is a highly successful vehicle for mass producing extremely sheltered and dysfunctional soys (for the lack of a better term - autists works too, if you prefer). These undersocialized products of isolated plots are everywhere, and they are often the primary cause of a lot of problems facing the society at large.




Some problems perhaps, but as for violent crimes and abuse... Do you care to hazard a guess what the nature of the upbringing of our very worse has been? I've lived downtown for quite a while now. I make an effort to know my neighbors and find roots but it really is quite easier when the breadth of possible neighbors is constrained to a density more comparable to our ancestral environment. There is a kind of anonymity that comes with dense living, 95% or more of the people who pass by my home are not people I recognize and would not stop what they're doing to share an anecdote.


I'll confess this isn't the critique of the middle class I was expecting for all the invective there just doesn't seem much there that isn't already contained in a scene or two of fight club or office space. That all these middle class people are dead inside is a trick of the light and your ego, a kind of faint hope that all these other people must be wrong, not you, your interesting life with the ever rotating, really in a constant state of disintegrating, group of friends dumping booze soaked trauma on each other must be giving you something that the squares can never have. Or else what was the point?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Some problems perhaps, but as for violent crimes and abuse... Do you care to hazard a guess what the nature of the upbringing of our very worse has been?




I do. It's extreme poverty. I am supremely confident that it is a far better predictor of being the "very worst" than population density.


Let me illustrate - which location do you think produces more of these "very worst" - Near North Side or Gary? Once you have an answer, contemplate on what it implies.




There is a kind of anonymity that comes with dense living, 95% or more of the people who pass by my home are not people I recognize and would not stop what they're doing to share an anecdote.




Of course. But I have a hard time understanding why momentary physical proximity is supposed to be the ultimate driver of social interaction. It can be - I've had building neighbours I've been great friends with - but it absolutely doesn't have to be. Living in the city puts you in an incredibly easily achievable access to a huge amount and a wide variety of people. Lots of them of the types you'll absolutely never get the slightest hope to see in a suburb.




That all these middle class people are dead inside is a trick of the light and your ego, a kind of faint hope that all these other people must be wrong, not you, your interesting life with the ever rotating, really in a constant state of disintegrating, group of friends dumping booze soaked trauma on each other must be giving you something that the squares can never have. Or else what was the point?




Well, it was hardly a huge secret that the goal was to be subversive. However I stand by my general assessment. It isn't based on any faint hope or anything of the sort - I genuinely do consider anyone who willingly abandons civilization (at the cost of an extensive daily commute) for the sake of incredibly meager comforts attached to a cardboard box on a patch of grass - to be fundamentally damaged in one way or another. Maybe their career just sucks all the life out of them, or maybe they were simply raised in a way that values uniformity above all else. I don't know, and my attempts to understand have thus far been unsuccessful.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Maybe their career just sucks all the life out of them, or maybe they were simply raised in a way that values uniformity above all else. I don't know, and my attempts to understand have thus far been unsuccessful.




Clearly you haven’t tried hard enough to understand other people. Ever heard of social signaling? It’s pervasive, and it’s important. Lawns and large plots are a premier American status symbol.


Before you mock this out of hand, I’d encourage you to look at your own life and how you try to signal your status. We all do it, there’s nothing wrong inherently in status signaling. What is wrong is when people like yourself try to attack your out group with no real arguments besides “I hate them.”


Maybe if you discussed the environmental damage or societal damage these types of people commit, I could reason with you. Based on your current strategy, I can’t.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Clearly you haven’t tried hard enough to understand other people. Ever heard of social signaling? It’s pervasive, and it’s important. Lawns and large plots are a premier American status symbol.




Best, most honest explanation yet!




Before you mock this out of hand




I wouldn't dream!..




I’d encourage you to look at your own life and how you try to signal your status. We all do it, there’s nothing wrong inherently in status signaling.




Inherently? No. When it takes the form of a watch you wear or the pants you put on - it's fairly harmless, if potentially gaudy as fuck if done by nouveau riche. When it's something that overtakes a highly significant part of your life and affects the entire way a city functions - it becomes inherently wrong.


Think of it in terms of an analogy - chasing some wine with a cracker in a ritual of faux (semi)cannibalism might be somewhat odd to a completely naive observer, but it's not really causing any serious issues. Throwing homosexuals off a high tower, on the other hand, is a bit more controversial and damaging in a very real sense.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Let me illustrate - which location do you think produces more of these "very worst" - Near North Side or Gary? Once you have an answer, contemplate on what it implies.




I don't think the near north side is producing very many kids at all. Well, maybe in the carnal sense. Varying both poverty and density at the same time is not a good experiment.




Living in the city puts you in an incredibly easily achievable access to a huge amount and a wide variety of people. Lots of them of the types you'll absolutely never get the slightest hope to see in a suburb.




It's this wide access that is the very problem! Why put down deep roots with some person when you're constantly exposed to new potential, and more importantly those people you'd never be able to find in the suburb also see you as one in thousands or millions. Maybe you'll share a drink at a bar with some famous person, I've had this experience myself, but they won't remember your name. This strikes me as am incredibly shallow experience.




to be fundamentally damaged in one way or another. Maybe their career just sucks all the life out of them, or maybe they were simply raised in a way that values uniformity above all else. I don't know, and my attempts to understand have thus far been unsuccessful.




You can start by recognizing that there is an equivalent of you in the suburb corner. They describe people like me and you as bug people, rootless and many other things. I don't think they're right, I think they're seeing a lifestyle they've never experienced and pathologizing the other. I think there are merits to different housing configurations and if you can't see what could cause some huge proportion of the population to choose one over the other then you lack either perspective or imagination.


From my understanding you hail from a Russian style of block housing. I hail from the suburbs and we've both lived in or near the Chicago urban core. We should be able to hash this out.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think the near north side is producing very many kids at all.




Not going to look up the exact numbers, but with ~100k inhabitants, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be behind most suburbs.




It's this wide access that is the very problem! Why put down deep roots with some person when you're constantly exposed to new potential




This point I genuinely don't understand. Why is that a problem? Do you really need to have the desperation of inability to get away from someone on your side to make an actual friend? If they find someone else they're exposed to more to their liking - great! It wasn't meant to be.




and more importantly those people you'd never be able to find in the suburb also see you as one in thousands or millions.




Sure. But the great thing about being in the big city is that they have designated areas where they find each other intentionally. And it works just fine, because one in thousands still yields a few hundred easily.




I think there are merits to different housing configurations and if you can't see what could cause some huge proportion of the population to choose one over the other then you lack either perspective or imagination.




I can see what would cause that, intellectually, but it's not particularly flattering and most certainly not what they believe is causing them to do so.




From my understanding you hail from a Russian style of block housing. I hail from the suburbs and we've both lived in or near the Chicago urban core. We should be able to hash this out.




The block housing part I feel would lead us into an entirely different conversation which I have found to be incredibly unproductive in the past. They aren't great architecturally, granted, but simply looking at them in isolation is silly. Their advantages lie in absolutely incredible access to vast networks of public infrastructure, which is, unfortunately, entirely lacking in American cities. Primarily because the actual city part is squeezed into a really tiny area by the immovable bulk of the proverbial lawn.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Not going to look up the exact numbers, but with ~100k inhabitants, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be behind most suburbs.




As I said, many a kid is likely incubating there and maybe spending some baby years there before their parents relocate to where the schools are better but I've lived nearby and despite the density you really don't run into local kids very much. Lincoln Park would be a better example but is not all that dense.




This point I genuinely don't understand. Why is that a problem? Do you really need to have the desperation of inability to get away from someone on your side to make an actual friend?




The knowledge that you're locked into proximity with a financial obligation that has a duration measured in decades encourages investment in the relationships. The other extreme is something like a fellow passenger on a flight where both of you live in different cities. I've had fine conversations on planes with strangers before but there is always the knowledge that the relationship is fleeting.


I think this enforced proximity for forming friendships is underrated, most people I know still keep in contact with high school and college friends precisely because they were stuck together for years and years. I've made a few more friends since then but not with nearly as much ease.




If they find someone else they're exposed to more to their liking - great! It wasn't meant to be




It's not particularly talked about, because being insecure is an insecurity, but there is an incredible natural insecurity in this model of relationship, where the ability to jump ship to a different, "better", one is such an easy option. I've said before on this forum that one of my favorite things about marriage is that you're able to close the whole book on the sexual relationship rat race. And with that book closed a tremendous amount of stress and insecurity have left my life. And it is such a weight gone that is difficult to express. I do not want my relationships to be a competition and that might mean that the people I spend my time with won't be the most perfect match possible, but the fine details of the match are so much less important than the depth of the roots.




I can see what would cause that, intellectually, but it's not particularly flattering and most certainly not what they believe is causing them to do so.




I think you probably have very little idea of what motivates them really. The number one motivation is school district. I don't think it's controversial for me to say that, at least in Chicago, the urban public schools are simply unfit and it's not a matter of funding. You cna argue they wouldn't be unfit if not for the flight of anyone able to leave to the better suburban schools but parents are not going to sacrifice their kids of the pyre in the hopes it works out. This doesn't really have anything to do with lawns or aesthetic criticism, just a schelling point and incentives. If doing whatever is best for your kid is unflattering let me be the first to make clear that what you think of me is not even on the same plane of consideration as what is best for my kids.




The block housing part I feel would lead us into an entirely different conversation which I have found to be incredibly unproductive in the past.




If you're not going to propose/defend an alternative then I'm not sure where this discussion could go.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As I said, many a kid is likely incubating there and maybe spending some baby years there before their parents relocate to where the schools are better but I've lived nearby and despite the density you really don't run into local kids very much.




That area is at the price level where accessibility of private schools is of a larger concern - and the best ones are unsurprisingly all clustered around there (and north to Lincoln Park, yes).


There definitely are kids there.




The knowledge that you're locked into proximity with a financial obligation that has a duration measured in decades encourages investment in the relationships.




That's kind of sad. While it's perfectly valid way for children to form bonds (they aren't extremely particular) it becomes somewhat less appropriate for adults, who typically look for something other than just any random person who happens to be nearby. In any case - nothing at all is stopping you from doing that in a huge block house. The problem you're describing lies in transient nature of housing which is overwhelmingly rental in American urban areas. But that's a consequence of American middle class idiosyncrasies, not a cause.




I do not want my relationships to be a competition and that might mean that the people I spend my time with won't be the most perfect match possible, but the fine details of the match are so much less important than the depth of the roots.




Intersex relationships are going to be somewhat of a competition due to simple biology, we can't really do much about that as a species or society, outside of weird stuff like arranged marriages, which carry a huge amount of their own burdens.


But you misunderstand my point about regular connections. These aren't meant to be competitive, they simply select for compatibility. Surely you've had friendships that faded away over time, right? Not necessarily because you lack physical access to someone, but simply because either you or him (or both) have, over time, found someone else they choose to spend time with. It's not about someone winning or losing here. And trapping you both in a close proximity without any alternatives would hardly be a better outcome...




I think you probably have very little idea of what motivates them really. The number one motivation is school district. I don't think it's controversial for me to say that, at least in Chicago, the urban public schools are simply unfit and it's not a matter of funding (...)




Okay, well here we go to the crux of the matter. Just as before - this isn't the cause of American middle class behaviour, it's the effect of it. There is nothing inherently bad about schools located in dense urban environments. Ability to quickly and easily walk to your school could hardly be considered a detriment by any sane person.


But yes, when a large proportion of people with the means to do so - do, in fact, flee to a lawn - the ones that don't - are quite strongly pushed to do the same. Overwhelming majority of above-average schools in, say, continental Europe are in major cities. Some Parisian schools have great reputation, while their suburban ones are widely considered to be dogshit. This follows the exact same indicators as it does in America, by the way.


So yes, you have discovered yet another extremely negative externality of lawn worship. It fucks up the urban livability in yet another way...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There definitely are kids there.




This is definitely not important but according to this page near north is dead last of Chicago neighborhoods for 0-17s at just under 5% of the population and I would hazard even that skews babies and infants. Your modal near norther is someone somewhere in the pattern of moving there as a transplant after college, working some ~six figure job in the loop for 5-10 years, meeting a partner and then moving to a different neighborhood when kids cone along.


https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Illinois/Chicago/Age-and-Sexist




The problem you're describing lies in transient nature of housing which is overwhelmingly rental in American urban areas. But that's a consequence of American middle class idiosyncrasies, not a cause.




It's the consequence of many factors. One of which is inertia, which can't reasonably be resisted and which you seem to heavily underestimate. As you're sneering at the people themselves and not just their circumstance it's enough to show that there simply aren't great options for young professions starting a family to satisfy non-negotiables like school quality and safety outside of the suburbs. We can perhaps have an interesting discussion on why that is but you'd first need to disarm your contempt and understand the actual choices on the ground that these people have.




But you misunderstand my point about regular connections. These aren't meant to be competitive, they simply select for compatibility. Surely you've had friendships that faded away over time, right? Not necessarily because you lack physical access to someone, but simply because either you or him (or both) have, over time, found someone else they choose to spend time with. It's not about someone winning or losing here. And trapping you both in a close proximity without any alternatives would hardly be a better outcome...




"Compatability" contains much here. It's maybe worthy of a whole effort post on the different types of things it can mean to different people. To some I suspect it means trivialities like having similar tastes in music or politics. To other it's deep values that need to be aligned or there will be strife. But here in this conversation it just seems to signal anti-diversity. In a swarm of millions people seeking compatibility are able to form weak bonds with people just like them and then proceed to treat each other as the perfectly replaceable social cogs that they are. "anti-capitalist Billy is leaving? Darn, guess I'll call up one of the dozen anti-capitalist Billies I've had on the bench". I reject that these are stronger bonds than can be forged with less "compatible" material placed in the furnace of forced proximity.




matter. Just as before - this isn't the cause of American middle class behaviour, it's the effect of it.




It's both. The environment shapes behavior and behavior shapes the environment. Your proposal is not something any even large group of people can will into existence, let alone individual families. If all goes to plan I intend to have a kid something like 2 years from now. Not one of the options available to me is to move to a block of stable families proximate to a good school district and parks. It's urban Chicago, at best Lincoln Park, or the suburbs and for people not as fortunate as I am in the financial depart Lincoln park is no an available option. We can discuss why that is and how society might bring alternative about but holding people poorer to me that want to do what is best for their children in contempt like some kind of mysterious animal is not going to get you anywhere.




But yes, when a large proportion of people with the means to do so - do, in fact, flee to a lawn




And finally the lawns, the classic symbol of middle class contemptability, the desire to be surrounded by green space? It's been hashed out elsewhere in this thread but you seem to have a very outsider view of what it's like to live in a well designed suburb, which I'll freely admit is not all of them. The intention is for it to feel like you're inside the park, complete with larger park areas that have all the classics like sports fields and jungle gyms.


The "darn kids, keep off my lawn" trope is not supposed to describe all suburbanites, it's a critique by suburbanites of a particular type of suburbanite that takes their lawn status symbol too seriously and losses sight of its purpose.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As a resident and homeowner in Japan one of the small aspects of daily life I miss most are yards. In which I might play with my sons, or keep my dog if we had one, or mow and rake as therapeutic look-this-thing-I-did-has-immediate-results. As it is we have pavement, and in one small section, gravel, and a few potted plants. There is a small dedicated neighborhood park adjacent to our home, and for a time I used to busy myself with its upkeep, until it was gently suggested to me that this was accruing undesirable on on the part of the rest of the neighborhood, to whom my behavior could only be seen as odd but then what-can-one-expect-from-foreigners.


I am not sure if lawns in particular are your bugbear, or a general disdain of people. Lawns are arguably not the sole domain of the suburban middle class. You use the term Karen-y which puts you square in my mind in a certain youthful angry nihilistic demographic that is alien to me. Though I could be wrong. The snark may be clouding your greater points.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There is a small dedicated neighborhood park adjacent to our home, and for a time I used to busy myself with its upkeep, until it was gently suggested to me that this was accruing undesirable on on the part of the rest of the neighborhood, to whom my behavior could only be seen as odd but then what-can-one-expect-from-foreigners.




Huh, could you elaborate? That seems 'very weird', and glances into unfamiliar social situations are often interesting.


You can play with your kids in the neighborhood park, ofc. If anything it's a better place for play as it could naturally gather many different children.


There's a bit of a 'food is shit and portions too small' with the above critique though - lawns suck! They use too much space, and you're not allowed to fill it with a permaculture food forest!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Elaborate how? Of course i can and will, but which part?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Whatever you want to, but I'm specifically interested in whatever social norms led to maintaining the park seeming undesirable and being foreigner behavior, as opposed to anything political. Why isn't it just a harmless hobby? Do the local kids not use parks? Like - a vignette of an unfamiliar culture.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah. Let me explain myself. As well to ＠5434a


Because I often make typos it is possible one word seemed to be typed mistakenly, but wasn't. The word on. On (恩) means basically when i do you a favor, you owe me some sort of favor in return (恩返し) . To "accrue undesirable on" then would be to do [something] for someone where they then had a debt to me. My example in this case is the tending of the park--trimming the bushes, weeding unsightly plants, etc. For me to do this alone, in a way for the benefit of the neighborhood, might seem just civic responsibility for an American (or even just a harmless way for a neighbor to pass the time). In Japan however this puts everyone else in the neighborhood in the awkward position of being ever-so-subtly in debt to me, particularly if I am out there often enough, or seem to be applying myself strenuously.


A neighbor who brings you a bag of tomatoes from her back garden has been generous, but you'd do well to in some way take her kids a basket of muffins or whatever. Not the very next day, no need to be too obvious about it, but without too much delay. This is how the wheels of social intercourse stay greased.


None of this is peculiar to Japan, of course, except in the way these norms are adhered to by pretty much all but the most socially inept, fools, or, yes, foreigners. I have lived here long enough that some of this has finally been internalized.


I suspect in the public sphere (certainly in business, at least) the degree to which this kind of behavior scales could dance very close to what would be considered corruption. Reams of text have been published advising non-Japanese  how to interact with Japanese representatives--and Japanese as well adjust their norms (at times perhaps hamhandedly) to suit "foreign" behavior. (Scare quotes because for many Jaoanese that term seems to be a monolithic catchall, as if all "foreigners" have the same kind of behavior.


The neighborhood, within about a year, formed a committee of residents represented by a dozen people (who rotate out and in every year or two) and one of the projects the committee created was to have people weed the park. What then happened was that because so many had been recruited to do this cleaning there were more hands than necessary, resulting in a lot of grass that should have stayed in the soil to keep it from eroding getting  yanked up and bagged by well-meaning people who couldn't just loaf when there was ostensible work to do. Circle of life.


It's tempting for me to dismiss as odd and dysfunctional a lot of the ways Japanese culture(s) seem to work, but then I have only to think of my own upbringing to realize I shouldn't be casting stones.


If none of this makes sense I will try and clarify.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That does make sense, thanks! I do wonder how little cultural things like that emerge and persist, but that's a broader / harder question


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fascinating. Would it not be possible to just tell them explicitly that you were doing it for fun and not because you wanted to help anyone or were expecting something in return? Can the on debt be forgiven?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know but I somehow doubt it. Saying almost anything explicitly here is considered bad form--or, actually I only guess that it is bad form, as even that has never been said to me explicitly. Even in my earlier post when I said that it was "put to me" that I was accruing on inadvertently, this was not really put to me. It was hinted at and I got the message.


If I had to imagine it, I would say that I could, yes, state to one or two neighbors that I just wanted to piddle in the garden park for my own gratification, and I would then be seen as a tolerable eccentric (which is how I am usually seen anyway.) But it would contribute to an imbalance of what I will probably inappropriately call the wa of the neighborhood. I would set things off kilter, and as a foreigner here I always take pains to not do that any more than I do by my presence alone. And probably someone would still not feel right about it.


On is one of those things that never ends. The cycle commences and then it never stops. We have one neighbor whose sole interactions with us are greetings--no other kindnesses or gestures--for once those begin, they can never end. It's nothing personal. I guess. All of this is just me intuiting the unwritten rules.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That bit confused me too. What does "accruing undesirable" constitute? Did people see a better kept park and start monopolising it? Are better kept parks considered fussy and unnatural? Were you encroaching on somebody else's remit?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Japanese density is somewhat of its own, special case that stems from the sheer number of people packed into a rather small island. Their peculiar problems would not really translate to places where land isn't as incredibly limited.




You use the term Karen-y which puts you square in my mind in a certain youthful angry nihilistic demographic that is alien to me.




That is interesting. Which demographic would you consider that to be? I was under the impression that the stereotype of a self-absorbed and pushy middle aged crank is not really limited to any particular demographic. It just didn't have a catchy name attached to it until recently.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Cf boomer, incel, millennial. Karen means woman who should be dismissed out of hand. Users of such terms are more an internet demographic if that is a thing. As I say I could be wrong.


Sure Japan is population dense, but still I would love a good backyard. And a front would be icing on the cake. In Botswana they had 'yards' but of sand, and any grass that sprouted you were supposed to dig up by the roots immediately for fear (rational or otherwise I can't say) of snakes. So lots of packed sand yards. I remember one guy up in Maun used to grow a lawn and could be found watering it regularly--an unheard of extravagance in any but the far north areas of that bushveldt/desert country.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's a very wide net you're casting as far as possible demographics. The only ones you've missed are gen-xers and zoomers. If you care to narrow it down a little bit, I'll comment.




Sure Japan is population dense, but still I would love a good backyard.




That sentence is silly. Population density fundamentally excludes that. Even (common) courtyards are rare in places as dense as major Japanese metropolises - yards are simply impractical. Almost everything positive that you can ascribe to a Japanese city as a product of that density and would not work in a sprawling giant of a "metro area".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You can say the sentence is silly, of course. Perhaps realistically it's silly, but I can have my preferences, I'm sure you would agree. I have no immediate plans to move but plenty of people do have yards in less urban areas of Japan, and we looked at a house some years ago whose main selling point in my mind was its smallish yard. Whatever population density you are imagining or reading about does not necessarily preclude all people in Japan from having yards.


You misconstrue. I am not saying boomer, etc. are the demographics I am referring to. I am suggesting these are similar terms people use to classify their outgroup, as you have classified Karens, or by using the term "Karen-y" as if that is something we are all meant to sympathize with and understand. The term to me says more about the person using it than it does crystallize in my head whom you may mean.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


plenty of people do have yards in less urban areas of Japan




Here's the key phrase here. I'm specifically seething about the ones in more urban areas. What people do in the middle of nowhere concerns me very little. I in fact sympathise (at least to an extent) with people that prefer more rural living.




I am suggesting these are similar terms people use to classify their outgroup, as you have classified Karens, or by using the term "Karen-y" as if that is something we are all meant to sympathize with and understand.




Not to go into meta-linguistics, but it's just a shorthand for an annoying, pedantic, and pushy person. All words carry some sort of an origin, but worrying about that sort of thing is just limiting your own ability to express yourself.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Again, you're not getting me. I am saying that there are yards in areas just outside the city. It's not that far-fetched. In city center, sure, right, yes, no yards, except perhaps for the very rich behind their walled gates, but those are usually cultivated Japanese gardens.


As for your quip about my limiting my ability to express myself, let's agree to disagree. Or just disagree, either is fine.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is a pretty bad post.  I probably would not have approved it, had I been the one at the queue.


It's not quite so culture-warry that I want to say "it belongs in the CW thread," though maybe that would be the best approach.  Mostly it's just too much heat, and absolutely no light whatsoever.  It's "boo outgroup" except it's written in a way that suggests to me this isn't really your outgroup, so, I don't know.  I'm going to go with "don't post like this, please" and hope I don't have to ban you later to make that happen.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I probably would not have approved it, had I been the one at the queue.




Getting it approved was a challenge. Your mod tools were broken on mobile and a bunch of other technical stuff I don't really understand.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Wow, it sure is convenient that your outgroup fucking sucks. I mean they are some real assholes. Some irredeemable excuses for human beings. How dare they converge on different solutions than you? And to do so while being both stupid and unattractive?


Seriously, you’re engaging in the lowest form of complaining. Why not ask one of the more interesting questions, like:


    

  • 

    What would it take for me to empathize with these guys?
    

    • 

  • 

    Cui bono? Whose incentives got us into this situation?
    

    • 

  • 

    What might right-thinking people do to fix the mess?
    

    • 

  • 

    Why am I anywhere near Cook County?
    

    • 



Edit: oh, right. I like my superfluous rifle collection. It’s a nice luxury with, in my case, no practical value. If you haven’t been shooting, you should try it at least once, especially if you have any affection for machinery.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What would it take for me to empathize with these guys?




Perhaps a lobotomy.




Cui bono? Whose incentives got us into this situation?




That is a very complicated issue with multiple factors. Partially it was a planned marketing campaign by a number of industries. Partially it was mass racist hysteria, and partially this hysteria was manufactured or at least aggravated by some well-meaning, but objectively misguided policies.


This is a very interesting discussion to have.




What might right-thinking people do to fix the mess?




Well, on one hand it looked like it was slowly getting a bit better, with gentrification and expansion of public transport into something that isn't inherently a meme. But then 2020 events happened, each of which has done a lot to reverse the recent gains. Fixing it would require a number of centralized (not local) policies now.




Why am I anywhere near Cook County?




Why wouldn't you be?


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-16
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Partially it was a planned marketing campaign by a number of industries. Partially it was mass racist hysteria, and partially this hysteria was manufactured or at least aggravated by some well-meaning, but objectively misguided policies




What do you mean by this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's three separate issues presented there. Automobiles and their radical and very successful destruction of public transport and creation of absolutely massive parking infrastructure - all as part of a concerted effort by relevant industries to lobby for these changes. The hysteria refers to white flight, which started on its own but was considerably aggravated by highly destructive bussing policies within urban areas.


Obviously each one of these could have their very own post written about them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't buy this narrative of the "very successful destruction" of public transport by automobiles. For one, airplanes still exist and are very successful.




all as part of a concerted effort by relevant industries to lobby for these changes.




So are you ruling out that these changes happened because people wanted them?




The hysteria refers to white flight, which started on its own but was considerably aggravated by highly destructive bussing policies within urban areas.




Not sure what policies you're referring to, but from my understanding, it was crime, not the policies. Or maybe the crime caused the policies.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Honestly, I was planning on visiting this fall. My girlfriend is enamored with the idea of big-city life, renting and all. I think she’ll be disappointed, but it’s worth a look.


What is the current status of public transport? I’ve heard the hub-and-spoke trains plus the L makes for an effective enough solution. Is that not true?


You should see how long it takes for Dallas transit to get anywhere.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What is the current status of public transport? I’ve heard the hub-and-spoke trains plus the L makes for an effective enough solution. Is that not true?




It depends on how close you are to the loop. If you're relatively near - yeah, public transport works great. If you're far away and not near the L station - getting places is going to be a struggle.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You don't have children, do you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Have you never grilled out and drank beer with friends on a nice green lawn?




To sum it up, the only real question is... Why are they like this? Who hurt them?




The answer is bums, hobos, panhandlers, psychos, perverts, buskers, criminals, litterers, and generally obnoxious people, and the leaders that do nothing effective to stop them from shitting the commons.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Tbh grilling in the back yard seems way better. In my ideal world front lawns would be cannibalized for back yards. The only advantage to front yards is I can put my trees there and they get lots of sun.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Vast majority of these issues are created via horrifically failed social policies. While bums and whatnot are always going to be present under any social system where the need to keep the ruled in fear is paramount for its continued existence - having a less despicable middle class whose insecurities don't cause them to adopt as ghoulish of policies typically helps with having them at least somewhat contained, even in places that aren't nearly as wealthy.


But, of course, as long as the system continues to require a terrifyingly downtrodden underclass to scare the general mass into compliance - bums will continue to exist in the cities. In the cities, because their survival depends on being in areas of dense foot traffic. That's hardly a legitimate reason to retreat to the unbelievably lame dystopia of the endless lawn...


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-12
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, you're basically saying that these failed social policies were created by the insecurities of the middle class?


If so, that's not how I see it. I see it as the result of people in power who aren't in contact with the ground-level reality. For example, they will let violent criminals out on low bonds ($500-$1,000) and don't realize how much of a disservice it is to the community. Another example is the abolishment of mental institutions under the guise that they were horrific for patients, without the acknowledgement that the alternative of letting them out onto the street is much worse (not only for society, but for the former patients too).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But, of course, as long as the system continues to require a terrifyingly downtrodden underclass to scare the general mass into compliance - bums will continue to exist in the cities




I have no idea what you mean by this, elaborate? Are you suggesting the middle or upper middle class would stop working if homeless people were less visible? That doesn't seem correct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Are you suggesting the middle or upper middle class would stop working if homeless people were less visible?




No. I'm suggesting that homelessness and extreme poverty could in most cases be easily be fixed by any modern society. The cost of such a collection of measures would be tiny in comparison to the externalities associated with actually having homelessness and associated social ills. But it's not being fixed, since it provides the working precariat something unbelievably scary to prevent them from quitting. Existence of homelessness is kind of a virtual whip for the modern proletarian.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But it's not being fixed, since it provides the working precariat something unbelievably scary to prevent them from quitting




I don't think any individual decision-makers believe this, though. The closest thing that exists is 'welfare removes the incentive to work', but conservatives and capitalists seem to, at least publicly, care a lot more about how homelessness is awful and how the evil liberals want to let the homeless roam the streets.


Even if the homeless were given free pods and showers, the precariat still wouldn't want to lose their apartments, their jobs, the ability to spend money on whatever things they enjoy, and the respect from their peers all of those things grant.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
crusty jugglers! ...That being said, yeah, that's the list.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You understand that your post is a lawn, right?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The analogy doesn't work, IMO.  Most people seem to like lawns and they aren't covered with shit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I prefer the term "delightfully profuse".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	







	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I happen to agree with your overall point, but I think your post breaks basically every rule that this website has. This is not Rdrama. Your post is almost entirely sneering without any actual arguments.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In my opinion, the actual arguments are quite clear, but you're welcome to ask for clarification of any points you believe aren't sufficiently supported.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-16
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the actual arguments are quite clear, but you're welcome to ask for clarification of any points you believe aren't sufficiently supported.




So to be clear You are arguing that [current year] surban normies are worse than the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, and the Khemer Rouge.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I wouldn't necessarily go that far. Their aesthetics are atrocious and their behavioural patterns have a horrific effect on urban areas, but they aren't actively killing people. I am able to be critical of a group without instantly assuming they're literally hitlers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I would like a clarification on how resources utilized on lawns could be repurposed toward something you think is useful.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Put the houses closer together, maybe stack some of them, and turn the space used by lawns and garages and driveways into community parks and such. Maybe density would enable 'mixed use urbanism', where there are enough people nearby to support small shops and attractions!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, space is by far the most obvious one. 20 floors of 100m3 flats is infinitely denser than 200 lawns. The remaining area could be used for public spaces, with actual attractions and/or purpose. Effort is a bit more complex, but just think of it as the case of economies of scale - individual lawns will take a lot more total man-hours to maintain than an equivalent public space, even if the latter has considerably more "things" to take care of.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So standing here in 2023, how is Cook county Illinois going to utilize these resources. Do you want suburban housing demolished and larger capacity units built instead? For the effort  component while 'centralization' of lawn service toward a community green space could free up resources such as man-hours I don't see how an extra hour of free time per week per household would change anything in the grand calculus of life.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All of the cities and suburbs that currently exist were planned and built! Planning and building continues! We could use this approach for new developments. Every complex social thing has entrenched interests and approaches that make change very difficult, this is just a general argument against change.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The way I see it, a non-negligible segment of the population has the decided preference to live in a manner that is less efficient in regards to city services and space accommodations, but affords them with other benefits. Given that we live in a free society with freedom of movement, forcing city-living on suburbanites would not be ideal for anyone. Your characterization of the middle class in America does not match my experience.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Almost nobody wants to ban suburbs. Idio is suggesting suburbs are bad for the people who live in them and that they should do other things, not that they should be legislated away.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Do you want suburban housing demolished and larger capacity units built instead?




That would be ideal. Larger capacity also fixes the mass transit problem, as denser areas are much easier and more cost-effective to connect.




I don't see how an extra hour of free time per week per household would change anything in the grand calculus of life.




As part of a grand realignment it would actually be quite significant. Keep in mind that commute would also significantly decrease (denser, closer, better transit, etc) and public spaces would improve.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But high density housing already exists in Cook county, residents have the choices to move there if they would like. Destroying existing housing is not efficient. Wouldn't it make more sense  to amend zoning laws and allow developers to build high density housing where demand allows? You're willingness to destroy these communities and your vitriolic descriptions of these folk (with spurious associations) make me suspect your aim is instead punitive. Since you have the option of living in the city, what does the existence of suburbs and your cliched description of it affect you when you may simply avoid it? I'll add a counter argument by saying that to my understanding the problems of the Windy City are not the result of its small size and a tremendous latent demand for high density housing; so while adopting your schema may create some efficiencies in city administration, other underlying problems affecting the Chicago would still exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Might be wrong but I think you're assuming more malice than exists on his part - he thinks demolishing suburbs would be 'ideal', but presumably as a practical policy supports getting rid of zoning laws, instead of eminent domaining every suburb


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
							



	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But high density housing already exists in Cook county, residents have the choices to move there if they would like. Destroying existing housing is not efficient. Wouldn't it make more sense to amend zoning laws and allow developers to build high density housing where demand allows?




Well of course it does, the "nuke the suburbs" is an intentionally inflammatory conversation starter, hardly practical (or even desirable) in reality. Yes, housing needs to get a lot denser, but it's a lot better to do that through gradual growth of existing high-density areas outwards than through trying to fill the entire metro with flat blocks.


The reason that isn't possible is due to the oversized influence lawn enthusiasts yield over the cities. So the high-density, actual, urban core suddenly stops in quite a few places.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			 
				
					

						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	



						
					

				
			
		

	




	

	

	

	

	

	
	

	
	

	
 















	






			
			

		

		
			
				


	

		
	


	


		
What is this place?

		

			This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a 
			court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to 
			optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.



			The weekly Culture War threads host the most 
			controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are 
			appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; 
			if in doubt, post!


			
			Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. 
			You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
		


		

		
Why are you called The Motte?

		

			A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, 
			it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
			originally identified by 
			philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial 
			but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens 
			this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for 
			the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired 
			propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."



			On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
			
		


		

		
New post guidelines


		

			If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
			A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
			such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
			submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).



			Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
			significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.



			If in doubt, please post it!
		


		

        
Rules

		

		


		
Recommended Posts And Communities

		

		
Recommended Realtime Chats